The ordination of women is a salvation issue for some Evangelicals?

I don’t thing Forward in Faith are arguing that one is not a Christian if one is in favour of ordaining women. Since they have a Roman soteriology, they believe that grace (which saves) is imbued through the sacraments, but only if they are valid. Since women (for FiF) cannot be priests, any woman performing a sacrament (i.e. Eucharist) is not actually performing a sacrament, the elements are not substantiated as Christ and therefore cannot imbue the receiver with grace.

That is the issue for FiF, and since it comes from a Roman sacramentology, by definition it is not  an “Evangelical” opposition to women’s ordination.

Shocking what some Christians really believe – and it’s totally theologically incorrect too! The verses about the role of women were about uneducated people not teaching, not about women, and written to a culture where women were being told they were better than men, worshipping the cult of Artemis. 

Another reading of the verses: “I do not permit anyone to murderously or falsely teach that women are better than men – and to prove it, Eve sinned first, so women are as sinful as men, not better.”  and “I do not permit anyone uneducated in the faith to teach in church. [In a culture where wives never learn or ask questions] your wives should be learning and asking husbands questions, not speaking in public because they could be mistaken for temple prostitutes, who are the only women who speak in public in this culture”

It’s amazing what the Bible verses say when you actually interpret them. Paul is actually very pro-women and very counter-cultural when it comes to the role of women, and in favour of equality. Anything else is just bad theology – like the whole ‘you’re not saved if you believe egalitarian theology’ argument. It’s just ridiculous.

Thanks for posting this Vicky – so good to have someone standing up against the bad theology that’s out there, we need more like you doing this!

It would be hard to label myself.  I serve at a church that is complementarian, though I myself wonder the validity of such a label.  Because of the huge amount of women who are in ministry, particularly in other parts of the world, I wonder whether it is viable to hold such a view.  

I do think to say that the ordination of women is a indicator of one’s salvation is extremely off.  However I think there are repercussions with whatever view you hold.  Obviously for this group of churches, one of the issues they bring up is the Eucharist.  If they believe that women shouldn’t be ordained, and with the ordination of women also brings into fact that such female ministers would administer the Eucharist, then it’s not only an issue that there was someone ordained that they think is unbiblical, but also that the ministries they must do will, for them, be tainted in a sense.

Once again, I don’t agree with this type of response at all.  There are core doctrines that define one’s salvation, outside doctrines inside of orthodoxy, etc.  This issue of female ordination is definitely not a salvation issue.

Hi Peter :-) Thanks for sharing. FIF are only one example I randomly selected. I’m mainly referring to the body of conservatives who believe women’s ordination is a salvation issue, not purely FIF. Any thoughts on that wider point?

Christ chose to appear to women first after His resurrection.  There must have been some significance to Him being ok with the women telling the rest of the world…I’m with Jesus on this one.  If He trusted a woman with THAT important of information, surely women in ministry should not be an issue…or even a salvation issue for that matter.  LOL.

Thanks for presenting the FiF stuff slightly better than I did – couldn’t see your post before I posted. Any AngloCatholics out there care to confirm it?

My wife is an ordained pastor (Presbyterian), and we have dealt with this issue for many years. It always strikes me as ironic, really. Ordination as a pastor in some denominations involves several years of study and a great deal of effort, all in the sense of being sure a candidate for ministry is theologically correct, properly prepared for office, etc. Meanwhile, in other denominations (usually the most evangelical and conservative), the standard for ordination involves little to no proper education, and only enough effort to convince their local pastor that they really think they should be doing ministry. If a woman goes the extra mile to be seminary-educated, she has demonstrated that she has the wherewithal to fulfill the calling God placed on her, just like any male.

I see this as very similar to the situation when Jesus is confronted with a woman accused of adultery. He tells the crowd, “Let the one without sin cast the first stone.” Saying that a woman’s ordination (or support for the same) is disqualification for salvation totally misses Jesus’ point. We are not to presume that we can take God’s place in judging others. If God chooses to call a woman to ministry, God has a very reason for doing so. Let’s not interfere with God’s purposes for our own agendas. Else, we’re guilty of being Pharisees.

The sacrement that is refierred to here has surely been presented within the cultural norms of Roman Sacramentology. This supports the apparent exclusion of women from being priests in the Bible…which again reflects the cultural norms of the time. When this issue is considered within the cultural context then it is clear just how radically Jesus challenged this – as has already been mentioned, Christ revealed himself to women after the resurection and he interacted against the social norms of the day in even speaking directly to women publically and socialising with the likes of Martha and Mary. Later in the New Testament Paul acknowledges Phoebe as ‘the deacon at the church of Cenchreae’
(Romans 16,1) and through the early life of church women held positions of leadership in the church (there is no evidence that they were not permitted to share the sacrement).

Within a couple of hundred years Greek norms began to dominate areas of the early church and emphasise their values of placing men at a higher level socially then men. This was reinforced by Roman society and it is this teaching that is reflected in the doctrine of much teaching on this. This view became the dominant view and this in turn perpetuated the whole belief that women can not be ordained.

It still saddens me  that whilst the church focuses on this and omits women from their ‘God ordained roles’ then the light of Christ continues to be shaded.

I have not seen this as a salvation issue, rather an interpretation issue.  Someone else brought in that this is bad theology, but I thought theology was the study of God.  

I am curious how ordination itself – the formal type process – is so accepted but I find very little evidence for in in the Scriptures.  There are some cautions against laying on hands but most have to do with Elders and Deacons, male, and qualifications.  

My wife was the first female ever to preach at half a dozen churches when we arrived in our piece of Florida about 15 years ago. Since then, at lease two now have woman pastors of their own. Progress often is very slow.

I am a woman preacher, I believe God has given me a gift to preach just the same as God has given gifts to other women to write worship songs and lead worship. I think I read a blog recently from you Vicky that said when you write songs they are not random but thought through, an idea or inspiration from God, reading the Bible or a book.  Preaching is no different! So I ask myself the question am I saved? Yes, totally! The one verse that always comes up when people are debating women preaching is the one where Paul says he doesn’t permit women to speak in church or teach men. I believe firstly this was to do with women not being allowed to be part of the service but were sat at the back and so they got bored and have a good chat/gossip.  Teaching men I believe was a cultural issue of the day. If women could not teach males, then why are they allowed to teach sunday school, be youth pastors? Does this verse only apply when a male turns 18?  As for women being ordained, I don’t have a problem with it, the only verses that pertain to this is the guidelines for being an elder or a deacon.  The one I have heard is that it says an elder should be the husband of one wife. So that begs the question are they speaking about the culture of the day where men had more than one wife? and if that is the case then it is addressing the issue of polygyny. The other question to raise is what about single men, can they be elders or ordained without having a wife? 

I’ve said before that I’m no theologian, but please permit me to look at this from the lay perspective.

I came back to Christ some years ago via the Methodist Church. At the time, many of the local (lay) preachers were women. The then Chair of District was a woman, who went on to be President of the Methodist Conference. Within a couple of years, a woman was appointed as our new Minister. Some of my mentors in my journey were woman local preachers, one of whom who has now gone on to full time Ministry.

All of these women were hugely important in my journey of faith, and I am indebted to them - as I am to the men preachers and Ministers who have contributed just as much to the journey. Probably because I’ve come to faith via this route, I’ve never considered this issue from a theological perspective before deciding whether I can accept a woman preacher, what they said or their authority to say it. Rather, I’ve simply been grateful for, and humbled by, their very real help in my journey.

In terms of salvation, I’ve simply been working these past years on the understanding that my sins are washed away with my saviour’s blood, and that I am saved. Maybe I oversimplify things, but that is the message I’d been longing to hear, no matter from whose lips it eventually came.

Right – so the only one saying it is a gospel issue on this thread is from the pro-ordination side… right?

I think the message is: you can find people who make extremes out of any position. But no-one side has a monopoly on this kind of behaviour.

Wow – this just makes me sad. I mean, wouldn’t the enemy just love to silence around 50% of Christians by keeping women quiet?

I grew up in a conservative background and accepted the belief that women should not be pastors. It wasn’t until I was a Bible major in college that I began to slowly realize that, just perhaps, what my old church had taught wasn’t in fact accurate. 

I think one of the biggest things for me that changed my mind about women in ministry was learning about Jesus’ treatment of women in the gospels. He elevated them to a level much higher than that which was culturally accepted. That was one of the big things… “Hmm…. if Jesus did it…” Then I started reading about women like Huldah and Rahab, then I see Lydia, Priscilla, Deborah… and seeing how significant these women were to the gospel story. 

Then I saw one or two very strongly debated verses in Scripture that so many people seemed to hang their hat of theology on. The more I learned, the more strongly I believed and believe that women should be able to use whatever gifts the Lord has given them and called them to use in the local church. 

I am a woman, (-: and I am now working on my Master of Arts in Theological Studies. I too see this as a very important issue because I don’t want a women to feel like she cannot serve the Lord because her denomination tells her so. I think our God is a God of freedom and is bigger than that.

I’m with you, Vicky. Hopefully we’ll see each other at the pearly gates. (-;

~Kathryn

Is loving a matter of permission? If you were served the sacraments by a
brother who did not love the Lord could you still love Him? This is an
interesting question, and a question we may all have to deal with in the
future.

Following this question, there are others. Can a man with a cold heart, who does not follow the strictest
interpretation of scripture, love the Lord? Is a woman who serves the
sacraments, a woman whose heart is cold? Can you receive in faith from
her, knowing she is cold to the Lord? I think yes you can, as Jesus
Himself was a High Priest in the order of Melchizadek. Obviously it is better to have a body of clergy who are on fire for the Lord, and who themselves are continually being sanctified. But disbelieving a
woman is saved does not prevent a Christian from receiving the sacraments from her, except as a matter of principle. To me, the teaching issue is more relevant, because the implications of bad teaching have a father reaching effect. I am not, by any means, suggesting a woman cannot teach, preach or interpret scripture, but historically this is not a role women in the Church in either Testament were called to, although they may have helped facilitate it through marriage or in other ways. In Ephesians 3, Paul calls women, through the family, through the Church. As Christ’s “..intent was that now,
through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to
the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms…” (vs11)

How are women to fulfill this call? Many women fulfill it today by working for faith based charities, NGO’s and Christian not-for profits. These organizations may not administer the Sacraments, but I would argue they will be held as corporately accountable for their good works and their witness as together in their separate geographical groupings, the 7 churches in Revelation are. Many women in contemporary society also serve in the area of politics and government, some of them Catholic. Nobody has an issue with this, least of all the Church. I think we need to take a more holistic approach and look at how society has changed; how it fits together now, and how the Bible has earned a new relevance. I would be mortified if I were to be excluded from the Great Commission because it was given only to men – who had all left their wives (!).

People really feel that strongly against the ordination of women – so much so that it becomes a salvation issue?  I had no idea.  I thought anyone who believe in their heart that Jesus is Lord will be saved etc will be be saved? 

I am pro the ordination and preaching of women, which is handy, as I have about 6 months of training left before my ordination, and I preach!  However, I haven’t always been pro.  In fact, quite the opposite for a while, which was why it was such a shock when I began to hear God’s voice calling me into ministry!  It has been a long and difficult and exciting journey – one that I have started blogging about this week.  Part one of ‘The one where I ‘come out’ – can be found at
http://www.joroyal.com/2011/11/one-where-i-come-out-part-1.html  – I hope my shared journey will encourage, educate and challenge others. 

Jo :)

As I come from a conservative evangelical background, I continue to respect the differences within the conservative evangelical camp. In my first year of training for ordination I remember a conversation over dinner with someone who told me in no uncertain terms that I was going to hell because I was rebelling against God’s created order. For this person, it was a salvation issue. I have since heard this extreme view from only two other people. I have concluded that it matters not what man thinks, only what God thinks. I still regard myself as a conservative evangelical – even if they will not claim me.

But what bothers me most is the growing popularity of the misleading term ‘complementarian.’  Here is what I Howard Marshall says on why the term complementarianism is misleading.

‘Further it has become clear to me that the term complementarian is inappropriate since upholders of this view are able to produce lists of what women may not do in church but which can and must be done in a complementary fashion by men, whereas there is no corresponding list of what men may not do in church but which can and must be done by women. The complementary notion, in other words is one-sided and inappropriate. The principle that ‘women may only do X but men may do not only do X but also Y’ is not complentary; and to suggest that a women are better at serving tea and looking after the creche is to trivialise a theological principle rather athan a social arrangement.’ (How I Changed My Mind about Women in Leadership, Zondervan, p 147)

Hi Jody. I’m not ordained but am also a woman in ministry, and am convinced that the egalitarian reading of the (fairly complex) bible passages is the correct one. I have also encountered sexism -from all sorts of corners of the church – and it sucks!

I’m just wondering what you mean about the issue being a ‘primary one’? I though we used the terms primary and secondary to describe those things which are gospel/salvation issues (cf Paul in 1 cor 15) and secondary issues to describe everything else. It could be argued that there is a ‘sin’ category which overlaps with the primary issues thing (eg I think that it’s important for Christians not to son sexually etc) – and perhaps the issue of sexism would fall into this category. But I know a lot of good cons evangelicals who are NOT sexist, who in all good conscience would not want to endorse women teaching men/leading churches. I fear that the rhetoric being used in egalitarian circles about this being a ‘primary issue’ is actually doing the very thing Vicky is protesting.

I know that being on the receiving end of sexist behaviour is (to say the least ) very wearing and it can certainly FEEL like a primary issue when you’re a woman in ministry! But I think it’s still important to step back and say that at the end of the day we agree on the things of the gospel. The passages on women in ministry are complex and far from uniform. I think there is still a lot of sexism, but the theological tide is changing, and the impetus will be on people like you and your generation of leaders to show grace to those who, in good conscience, have come to a different conclusion on this issue. I guess that’s my appeal to you?

Presbytides, as they are called, or female presidents, are not to be appointed in the Church. — Canon XI, Council of Laodicea, fourth century A.D.

Women may not go to the altar. — Canon XLIV, Council of Laodicea, fourth century A.D.

The canons of this Council of Laodicea were accepted by the Quinisext Council in 692 A.D. in its Second Canon. The Quinisext Council is an extension of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils. Therefore, it is ecumenical.

We should obey God the Holy Spirit who leads the Church into all truth through ecumenical Church councils. (Acts 15:28 — “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us…”)

There is no confusion in the Holy Trinity. God the Father will not call someone to be a priest when God the Holy Spirit forbids such a person from assuming that office because of her gender.

Women can still have ministries that they perform in the Church, but they are not allowed to handle the Holy Mysteries, that is, the Sacraments. (One exception: They may perform an emergency baptism when a priest or bishop is not present.)

As for the ordination of women priests and bishops being a salvation issue, for us Orthodox we have never had any women priests or bishops. Our Church has an unbroken history that goes all the way back to the Apostles. (No Protestant Reformation in the Orthodox East.) Why should we change? We have closed communion. So, there is no communion between us and other Churches. Orthodox are not allowed to take communion in any other church but an Orthodox one. So, if there are any women priests and bishops in the non-Orthodox Churches, we cannot take communion with them because we are not in communion with their Church anyway.

There are abbesses in our Church. They supervise nuns. Priests’ wives often have things that they do ministerially. Women do have things that they do in our Church, but they do not serve the Divine Liturgy. They do not hallow chrism and chrismate. They do not perform weddings.

Mt. Athos has a lot of monasteries on it. There are no women on Mt. Athos. Only men. There is only one woman who is allowed to go onto Mt. Athos — Our Lord’s Mother, the Theotokos. There are several stories about her having visited the monks on Mt. Athos. She is the abbess who supervises all of the monasteries on Mt. Athos. That is what the Greeks say.

The greatest Saint in our Church is a woman — the Theotokos. So, we do honor women and we are not opposed to them. We want to keep the order that God wants us to keep in the Church. Bishops and priests are supposed to be men. (Read St. Paul’s pastoral epistles.) All of the apostles were men. Their successors were men. Some of the women Saints are said to be equal to the apostles, but they were not priests or bishops. St. Nina and St. Helen are equal to the apostles. St. Mary Magdalene is also equal to the apostles.

By not allowing women to be priests and bishops, we are not saying that we are against women. We are just saying that it is not their place in the Church. It is not a man’s place to have babies. We cannot do that. Should scientists find someone way for a man to become pregnant and have a baby so that we can all be able to do the same thing regardless of our gender? Should women be allowed to do something that God in His infinite wisdom forbids?

No, women should not be allowed to be ordained as priests or bishops. We should obey God. (I John 2:4)

Steve

The anglo catholic objection to OOW stems from the tradition of the church.  It traces its apostolic succession right back, seeing itself as the true (reformed) inheritor (more catho than the cathos).

I’m not v. clear on why OOW is a salvation issue for some con evos.  I think for at least some it is ‘cos it’s the thin end of the wedge for accepting/affirming gays within the church.  That can of worms is a salvation or ‘first order’ issue ‘cos of the authority/interpretation of scripture.  

Some AC’s are anti-OOW but liberal on gays, and vice versa for con evos (but not always).  I’m not a con evo, but wonder if some would say OOW is a second order issue (church order) rather than first order.   

I am not sure that the AngloCatholic reference helps at all here.

Salvation in catholic theology carries a different sense than in Reformed evangelical theology. It is certainly not a binary state but rather a question of fullness. Eternal destiny is not guaranteed for the Christian – yet many catholics also hope for universal reconciliation. Wesleyan theology is closer to this understanding, so it is not alien to the evangelical thought.

Yes to us Sacraments are a salvation issue, because they are necessary for the fullness of salvation. Lacking them however does not mean that other Christians are going to hell!

When Conservative Evangelicals say something is a salvation issue I think the consequences are more serious.

I’ve been married for over 20 years but I would have to say that this in NO WAY qualifies me to have a more authoritative opinion than someone who is single.  In fact, it probably makes me too inclined to base my theology on my experience rather than scripture – always a dangerous position to be in.  I always benefit from the more disinterested view of a single person.

However, from the way I read Paul on marriage I conclude that marriage acts as a sort of living parable of what the relationship between Christ and the church is (Ephesians 5: 22 – 33) and, prior to that, you could compare it to the relationship between God and his chosen people because marriage is a living example of a specific covenant relationship.  Within that context I would support the view that a wife should submit to her husband and her husband has his own particular role of authority in that relationship. 

I have just read Tim Keller’s ‘The Meaning of Marriage’ and recommend that as a very good starting point to consider this aspect of marriage – it reflects my views (and experience!) pretty accurately as to how that submission should be carried out.  BUT I do not accept that this means that women are excluded from leadership within the church because it is a different context entirely and I would go to the first part of Ephesians 5 again to support this amongst other texts.  

What really persuaded me is the realisation that the texts used to support the complimentarian view are not as black and white as they appear – to read them literally is to ignore the huge amount of scholarship that has taken place in recent years unpicking what the Greek words meant in their context when they were written – it is nowhere near as clear cut as is often presented.  For example, it appears that the translation of 2 Tim 12 which is often used to support the subordinate role of women in church may not be as accurately translated as it appears on the page.  Where Paul says ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man’ – ‘to have authority over’ can also be translated as ‘to dominate’ which has a very different connotation.  (Reference: http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/1-timothy-211-15).  This is just one example of a textual issue we should bear in mind.

The most unbiased book I have found that best represents these issues is ‘Two Views on Women in Ministry’ by Zondervan in which scholars from both sides debate the issue – it is excellent even if it is a little heavy going in parts.  Also the website http://www.cbeinternational.org/ has a number of academic papers on the textual issues I have found helpful.  

It would be very easy to list all the reasons why I have come down on the egalitarian view as far as women leading men are concerned but it would make a very boring and lengthy read.  Suffice to say at the end of it all, the evidence for the egalitarian view outweighs that of the complementarian view in my opinion – that is not to say I dismiss the latter view entirely though hence my views on marriage – but I do not believe you can legitimately link domestic sphere and the other the public sphere – they are different roles entirely.  

If you are seriously interested in this subject you have to do your own research and be prepared to listen to the voices on both sides – and I would say, look at the text and listen to the Greek scholars first and foremost (rather than someone who doesn’t delve deep into the translation issues) PLUS grappling with understanding the bigger overarching meta narrative of the Bible.  And pray all the time that your own inclinations don’t get in the way – that’s probably the hardest part!  

Sorry this is such a lengthy reply but I hope you find the links and references helpful.

Isn’t it time this thread either found some actual genuine Conservative Evangelical “Women’s Ordination is a Salvation Issue” arguments to engage with, or admitted that Conservative Evangelicals don’t hold such a position? At the moment all we are doing is debating everything BUT that issue.

I don’t think that’s really presenting a proper argument – it’s just hearsay. And as for your suppositions about what Con Evos are *actually* thinking, you simply can’t prove it.

Best to actually engage with a coherent, written, “out of their own mouths” argument, so let’s have one to grapple with please. Or, if we can’t find any, we need to accept that Con Evos *don’t* believe what people here are suggesting they do.

Here’s the quote from Wendy,

In my first year of training for ordination I remember a conversation over dinner with someone who told me in no uncertain terms that I was going to hell because I was rebelling against God’s created order.

I’m sorry, but that is not the same as someone putting forward a coherent argument saying that women’s ordination is a salvation issue. That’s just the end point of someone’s theology, not the theology itself. I might as well tell you about the egalitarians who tell me I’m going to burn in hell because I believe in complementarianism, but that’s not giving you anything to respond to either.

All we’ve had on this thread is hearsay and anecdotes. If you have a coherently expressed theological position from a Con Evo who says that women’s ordination is a salvation issue, a position we can all see and respond to, then we can engage with it intellectually. At the moment though, all we’re doing is emoting in response to anecdotes.

Jody, Peter is exactly right. You can find idiots who say stupid extreme things on both sides of the fence. This isn’t news of course. There’s actually been a person on this thread who has argued that women’s ordination is a salvation issue from the egalitarian side, remember.

It all sounds like everyone is trying to sound more persecuted than thou.

Your blog has been featured in this list of 17 top worship blogs!
http://goo.gl/KfZyQ

well the blogpost was asking us to discuss the position of evangelicals who see those of us ‘for’ women’s ordination as ‘unsaved’ – there have been plenty of discussions about the rights and wrongs of wo, but that’s not what this was for. but perhaps it’s the end of this discussion for the moment.

I always have issues with people challenging other people’s calling.

How can one judge what God has called someone to do?

By all means, that person could make it up, convince themselves of something unGodly etc

But where’s the trust in that?

Surely, it comes down to if God has called someone to do a task, male or female – then who am I to argue?

If the process of discernment, through prayer and Gods word has been carefully thought through then I simply have to trust them and God.

Hi Vicky

I’m not going to engage with the comments but simply want to encourage you to continue to speak, blog and tweet about these issues. I write as someone who is totally committed to seeing women in ministry but whether we agree or not these are critical issues for us.

Actually those who argue that this is a salvation issue are exactly right, for the same reasons that D Hampson rejected the traditional Christian faith – and it does come back to the scandal of particularity and the nature of creation, redemption and recapitulation. (if anyone wants me to unpack this tweet me and I’ll do my own blog post on the subject).

More than all this I want to say that I’m praying for you and would encourage everyone else here to do the same. Firstly to pray for you and your ministry and secondly because it is in prayer that we do theology (faith seeking understanding).

Bless you :)

Hi Jody
Thanks for clarifying what you mean on ‘primary issue’. I guess the Anglo Catholics would agree with you on it being a ‘salvation’ issue in that way, just from the opposite perspective!

Just wanted to clarify that I am definitely NOT against passionate, persuasive, rigorous arguments. I think of Elaine Storkey and Lis Goddard as people who argue the biblical justification for egalitarianism incredibly powerfully and persuasively – we need more of this! What I am wary of is when it dissolves into personal attack or name calling etc (not you – others who are doing this!) Stuff like ‘ordained women aren’t truly converted’ and on the other side ‘all complementarians are sexist / chauvinist / abusers of women’ etc.

I also think that there should be provision for complementarians in the C of E who don’t feel they can in good conscience accept the leadership of a woman bishop (just as I think there should be good provision for ordained women who currently have to be under the leadership of a bishop who doesn’t recognise their ministry!!) I think it would be a shame to effectively force out conservative evangelicals from the church of England.

I like what you say about being image bearers together – definitely! And the conservative evangelical church that I was part of was actually really affirming of women, and there was a sense of team work and everyone serving according to their gifts and no sense at all of women being less valuable to God or having a less important part to play. Any differences were minimal and certainly not emphasised. So I reckon that in terms of your model of seeing salvation worked out in valuing people as equals and working together for the kingdom – there was definitely all that going on. (though I probably haven’t grasped the full complexities of what
you’re arguing!)

Hope you have a good weekend!

I think I don’t like division either, sometimes (actually most of time) I hate the word heretic and people screaming over other people not having the same exact beliefs as theres. I would way rather people engaged in debate, disagreeing with each other and discussing point with intelligence , humour, humility and genuine desire to please god. In saying that though, all I want to do right now, when I hear people saying salvation is affected by women ordination, is scream heretic. 

God became a human, died for sins of the world, was resurrected, started a new community on earth where “there is neither Jew nor Gentil, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”, oh but by the way if a women gets ordinated then that screws the whole thing up! Seriously. 

Actually, people who want to use to the bible to degrade women are promoting something different to what Christ brought to this world. Personally, that is something I would separate myself completely from and would take disagreement with people saying anything different. Sometimes we need division otherwise everyone would be angry christians and God’s love further coming to earth would be limited. Yes we are all meant to be one, but isn’t that the point, we are to be one, if I want to deny a women of leadership then I am already leaving that viewpoint behind.

HI Jody, Michael, Peter  – I just thought to check back and now realise that my ‘late night’ post could probably use a bit of clarification. In response to VIcky’s request and the lack of response up this point, I just wanted to site a specific example of a conservative evangelical who did think that women’s leadership in the church was a salvation issue. (And, Michael, I don’t think that there any suggestion that my example had anything to do with ‘persecution’). My point was simply to support the blog in demonstrating that this is indeed an important topic for Christians to discuss. And it is especially important to discuss with both men and women together. Although the internet is not perfect, it does provide a neutral place for a cross section of voices from different ‘clubs’ to meet.

My personal journey from a ‘patriarchal’ to an ‘egalitarian’ view was not easy but an issue of obedience none the less. For I am now convinced by scripture and through freedom that salvation brings, that since creation, God calls and gives authority to both men and women as they represent Him by working together – ie. side by side – in bringing him Glory throughout the earth. Feel free to disagree.

I haven’t been able to read all the comments, but just in case this hasn’t been mentioned already – some of us who would be happy to call ourselves Anglican Catholics are fully supportive of the ordination of Women! Please google “Affirming Catholicism” or the “Society of Catholic Priests” if you are in any doubt!

i prefer what john piper says on this issue.

http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/sermon/reverse-the-curse
In this sermon Greg Boyd talks about the passage wives submit to your husbands …..  etc
I found it very insightful.  Please listen before making a judgement …. and then only judge if you don’t have the strength not to!

Hi, I am from Australia.
Please check out a new book titled Holy Misogyny by April Deconick. A book which describes how, over time, the Feminine Principle was systematically eliminated from church doctrine.
I would argue that the now-time anti-feminist “traditionalists”, both Protestant and “Catholic” have swallowed this conspiracy/deception hook-line-and-sinker (stinker).
I would also argue that the title of this book also contains a deception in that there is no such thing as “Holy” misogyny.
I would argue that ALL misogyny, whether dramatized by an individual or a collective is a dramatization of a psychotic split at the feeling depth or psychic core of ones being.

Unfortunately this deeply misogynist cultural script has infected our entire culture for a very long time now. It is structured into the very bones (so to speak) of the church, whether Protestant or “Catholic”, and into the bones/bodies of every single one of us.

I would further argue that the undoing of this toxic script is THE essential task of humankind altogether in 2011 and beyond.
The question is how.
Theology does not, and can not go deep enough to cause the necessary change. Indeed most of what is called theology is deeply infected by the toxic cultural virus that it naively hopes to cure.

my name is Teresa from YORK UK.Let me know do you know a christian solicitor please.I had an accident at work and I need a solicitor please.Thank you    Teresa

my email    carrson@wp.pl

Paul

i think i already did with those verses, i have read the bible from cover to cover. they are the verses that say no woman should have any authority over men.

im not against women in leadership,but i wouldnt be part of a church which had a woman pastor.

apart from what the bible says, i cant think of what else i can say about it expect do as it says.

a lot of people say we take the bible out of context, yet when i read it it is very clear to me.

i think the issue to many people is what do those verses really mean. there is nowhere else in the bible that says it so direct and bluntly as those verses.

i agree with you on this one.

Considering that the ordained ministry is man’s way of organising ourelves we should be looking at the priesthood of all believers.  Why did Paul not want women to have authority?  Look at the historical context and the culture he was writing through.  A young church fighting for ground in the RomanJewish world with the danger of gnostic teachings and outright heressy.  Women had been kept from being involved in leadership or even education in the synagogue for centuries.  Was Paul perhaps worried that through lack of expereience, ability and understanding that, for that time and culture, women might not be best equiped to lead?  Sadly it was a man’s world and men had to be leaders.  Time has moved on.  We have learned and adapted through cultural change and now women are (at least they should be) absolutre equals.  However there still is a Biblical stance on how God looks at us and how He expects men and women to interact, respect and support each other.  None of this means that one gender can lord it over the other but we have to examine very carefully the role and, possibly more importantly, the resposibility BEFORE GOD or who we are, how we live and how we do things.  All leadership candidates have to be examined be they male or female.  Gender based leadership choice should be based on calling, gifting  and ability and not simply on gender desire for equality.  A woman can be a leader not because she is a woman seeking equality but because she is called and seen to be called by God to minister to his people.
Bread and wine are just bread and wine regardless of who dishes them out.  Jesus used them as a symbol of what he was, what he was about to do and how we should remember him throughout all history when we meet together.  Ditch the twaddle and get on with telling people that God loves them and nobody, absolutely nobody is beyond God’s love.